header-logo header-logo

09 July 2015
Issue: 7660 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Negligence fee victory for Mesothelioma sufferers

Welcome court fee U-turn for mesothelioma cases

Mesothelioma sufferers will not be asked to spend their government pay-out on court fees if they bring a negligence claim, after Justice Secretary Michael Gove conceded defeat ahead of a judicial review.

Mesothelioma sufferers faced the prospect of paying up to £10,000 in court fees to bring a claim, after the government controversially hiked court fees for civil proceedings in March 2015. However, they can now apply for a fee remission without a statutory pay-out counting towards the “disposable capital” threshold.

Lawyers for the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK and mesothelioma sufferers Ian Doughty and Carole Sloper brought a legal challenge, arguing that mesothelioma sufferers, whose terminal lung condition is caused by exposure to asbestos, are typically of modest means—their illness makes them disabled within the terms of the Equality Act 2010.

As they will have received a lump sum award of about £15,000 under the Pneumoconiosis Etc Workers’ Compensation) Act, they will usually not qualify for the fee remissions scheme, which has a threshold of £16,000 in “disposable capital”. Their claim will be worth £150,000 to £300,000 so they would therefore need to pay up to £10,000 up front in order to bring a negligence claim.

Their lawyers argued that mesothelioma sufferers would be prevented from bringing a claim because they could not be expected to give up a large part of their disposable capital in the last months of their lives.

A judicial review hearing was scheduled for later this month. However, Gove agreed last week to exclude mesothelioma compensation awards from the definition of “disposable capital” and will now place an amending statutory instrument to that effect before Parliament.

Issue: 7660 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll